Will you have to buy a new TV?

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » October 29, 2003, 2:43 pm

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/ ... index.html

Court OKs death for analog TVs
Appeals court upholds rule requiring digital tuners by July 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a government rule requiring all but the smallest new televisions to have tuners that can receive digital TV signals by July 2007.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » October 29, 2003, 2:50 pm

all but the smallest new televisions

I'd say not.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 29, 2003, 3:08 pm

Amazingly idiotic. The government has no business mandating electronic devices have the tuners or not. Manufacturers should have the right to include them or not as they wish. The mandate takes away their choice in designing their product, and will end up imposing a cost on the end consumer that they may have not chosen to bear if they had the choice.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » October 29, 2003, 4:12 pm

What are the politics behind the push for digital tuners?

I seem to remember something about the big networks using it as a lever to grab more spectrum.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 29, 2003, 5:00 pm

that is an interesting question - who is lobbying for this, and why are they doing so.

i also agree that the market should decide whetehr or not digital tuners become the standard, not the government (and more specifically industry lobbiests).

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 29, 2003, 5:38 pm

A Reason Express bit from last August when the rule first came out implies it is primarly the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and possibly the movie industry that is involved in pushing for the tuners

http://www.reason.com/re/081302.shtml
(Scroll down to the bit about Digital Monsters. Don't try to use the in-page link at the top of the page, it takes you to the first item of the current issue instead).

The NAB is mortified that its members will be left out of the digital age unless the government mandates a niche for them. It also has an interest in a related FCC action that got less attention, but is potentially much more important. The FCC just voted to consider requiring those mandated digital TV tuners to include a "copy protection" scheme backed by Hollywood.

Both the broadcasters and Hollywood hate and fear new digital video recorders like TiVo and ReplayTV. Broadcasters loathe the fact that such units can instantly skip over commercials. (In theory, subscription-based services like cable do not need ads, but for-profit over-the-air broadcasters always will.) And the content owners fear that putting digital copying devices in the loop will spell doom for fat profits and high margins.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 29, 2003, 5:47 pm

Chmee wrote:Amazingly idiotic. The government has no business mandating electronic devices have the tuners or not. Manufacturers should have the right to include them or not as they wish. The mandate takes away their choice in designing their product, and will end up imposing a cost on the end consumer that they may have not chosen to bear if they had the choice.

You realize that the government has been regulating how tv's are manufactured since they were invented right? The government controls the airwaves.. they are basically protecting consumers by forcing manufacturers to conform to new technologies. Eventually the government is going to want to switch all the airwaves over to digital. when that happens, they want to make sure that people have the proper television sets, because most cheap models of TVs won't have the capacity to pick up digital channels unless hte government forces it on them. And it's not like the average joe is out there asking the tv salesman if the TV they are going to buy can pick up digital signals.

Do you complain about the government mandating emmision control on auto manufacturers too? What about safety regulations for playground equipment? I bet those really strap your phony libertarian hide.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » October 29, 2003, 5:58 pm

...they are basically protecting consumers by forcing manufacturers to conform to new technologies. Eventually the government is going to want to switch all the airwaves over to digital.

Radio waves are radio waves are radio waves, the payload differs. There's no such thing as "digital" waves, and you can push both types of signal at once. I believe the current (shitty) technology requires more spectrum to transmit the same content is the difference.

I'm inclined to think it's more outmoded MPAA\RIAA type idiocy, need to look into it.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 29, 2003, 6:29 pm

kyoukan wrote: You realize that the government has been regulating how tv's are manufactured since they were invented right? The government controls the airwaves.. they are basically protecting consumers by forcing manufacturers to conform to new technologies. Eventually the government is going to want to switch all the airwaves over to digital. when that happens, they want to make sure that people have the proper television sets, because most cheap models of TVs won't have the capacity to pick up digital channels unless hte government forces it on them. And it's not like the average joe is out there asking the tv salesman if the TV they are going to buy can pick up digital signals.

The government often regulates where it shouldn't. This is one of those cases. As stated in the original link, if you have cable or a satellite dish, you don't need a tuner in your TV. So those people are supposed to pay for a piece of hardware they don't need just to prevent the average joe from actually putting a bit of thought into his purchase?

Do you complain about the government mandating emmision control on auto manufacturers too? What about safety regulations for playground equipment? I bet those really strap your phony libertarian hide.

Not all regulations are equal in desirability (or lack thereof). Emmision control regulations are designed to address the negative externality of automobile pollution. If I routinely burn a big pile of tires in my front yard and the smoke ends up covering my neighbor's house he would have a fair case for litigating against me since I am damaging his property. Auto pollution acts similarly, but the effect on any particular person from a single car is so small that it is unlikely anyone would take action. In total though it is signficant enough to be a problem so we address it through regulation. Safety regulation mandates standards for products/procedures that the government deems safe. There are potentially other ways of addressing both problems, which could prove superior ways of dealing with the issues. But these generally speaking these regulations are at least somewhat more justified than the digital tuner cases (although there are certainly examples of bad emission and safety regulations as well).

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » October 29, 2003, 6:43 pm

Protecting consumers my ass.

Where orofice did you pull that from?

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » October 30, 2003, 6:16 pm

kyoukan what political party are you registered under?

...but there is no reason the government should force television companies to do that

Ennia · Post by **Ennia** » October 30, 2003, 6:58 pm

I'm sure it's all for good, technology changes after all. And like Tanz mentioned it's about new televisions. You will still be able to use whatever you have now. Eventualy after some time when your TV breaks or you just want to see and hear better you will buy a new TV that will have all the current perks.

Now I didn't read the link, but does it say anywhere that in July 2007 my old TV will cease to work because of this law?

Post by **Sylvus** » October 30, 2003, 11:44 pm

Go watch an HD capable TV and then tell me this isn't a good thing. The day they become obselete I'll smash my old TVs with a hammer and then dance a jig. Digital is so much higher quality. Did you guys get all weepy and sentimental when the steam engine started getting replaced?

Seriously, why are you guys upset about this? This legislation has been in effect for years, in 1998 they knew that in ~10 years all new TVs would have to decode digital signals.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » October 31, 2003, 3:42 am

Won't this just make HD TV OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS cheaper? In my mind, that would not be a bad thing...

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 31, 2003, 4:03 am

Sylvus wrote:Go watch an HD capable TV and then tell me this isn't a good thing. The day they become obselete I'll smash my old TVs with a hammer and then dance a jig. Digital is so much higher quality. Did you guys get all weepy and sentimental when the steam engine started getting replaced?

Seriously, why are you guys upset about this? This legislation has been in effect for years, in 1998 they knew that in ~10 years all new TVs would have to decode digital signals.

THOUGHT POLICE. I WON'T LET THE GOVERNMENT CONTROL MY TELEVISION. ITS ALL A SECRET MPAA AND RIAA PLOT.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » October 31, 2003, 9:11 am

Damn you can be a flake Kyou. Our govt does not pass legislation like this because "it's good for the people".

They pass things like this because someone paid them too.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 31, 2003, 9:17 am

ok. who's paying them to and why?

oh yeah. you don't know. because nobody is.

part of a government's obligation to society is to encourage and even enforce progress. why in the world you want to stay in the dark ages instead of advancing technologically is anyone's guess. to save a couple dollars next time you buy a tv? what is the point of even having a government if they aren't going to pass regulations that advances society?

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » October 31, 2003, 9:30 am

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 31, 2003, 11:08 am

Just because a signal is digital, doesn't mean you're getting a high-definition picture. I think it sucks that if I decide to purchase a tv right now, I don't want it to be obsolete in 4 years. Sure, my 12 year old tv can be replaced about now (which is why I'm toying with the prospect of buying one) and especially by 2007, but I don't want my "new" tv to become obsolete just because I didn't want to spend $800+ on one.

Sure, I piss myself watching ESPN HD on a wide-screen kick ass tv just like the next guy. However, I'm not plunking down $6 fucking k for one just because I won't have to start making payments until 2005.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » October 31, 2003, 12:20 pm

kyoukan wrote:ok. who's paying them to and why?

oh yeah. you don't know. because nobody is.

part of a government's obligation to society is to encourage and even enforce progress. why in the world you want to stay in the dark ages instead of advancing technologically is anyone's guess. to save a couple dollars next time you buy a tv? what is the point of even having a government if they aren't going to pass regulations that advances society?

What about the self-charging battery?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » October 31, 2003, 12:46 pm

Were this a safety or cost issue, I would agree with you Kyou.

We are talking about improving the reception of a football game here. I don't recall the government getting involved by legislating the switch from Beta recording to VHS.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 31, 2003, 12:50 pm

kyoukan wrote:part of a government's obligation to society is to encourage and even enforce progress. why in the world you want to stay in the dark ages instead of advancing technologically is anyone's guess. to save a couple dollars next time you buy a tv? what is the point of even having a government if they aren't going to pass regulations that advances society?

The role of government should be to defend the borders, establish the rule of law, to protect the rights of individuals. That being done, a free people are quite capable of advancing themselves.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 31, 2003, 2:11 pm

Chidoro wrote:Just because a signal is digital, doesn't mean you're getting a high-definition picture. I think it sucks that if I decide to purchase a tv right now, I don't want it to be obsolete in 4 years. Sure, my 12 year old tv can be replaced about now (which is why I'm toying with the prospect of buying one) and especially by 2007, but I don't want my "new" tv to become obsolete just because I didn't want to spend $800+ on one.

Sure, I piss myself watching ESPN HD on a wide-screen kick ass tv just like the next guy. However, I'm not plunking down $6 fucking k for one just because I won't have to start making payments until 2005.

Digital pictures that aren't high definition still look better than even standard DirecTV channels.

As for the cost, I saw a 47" HDTV for 899.00 at CompUSA of all places. They aren't all that expensive if you look around and even though you need to get the HD tuner, that's only 300-600.00 these days depending on what you watch (cable/satellite/OTA)

I've had my HDTV for over 2 years now. Only my local PBS station actually broadcast in High Definition back then and only HDNet was around on satellite. Now, All major channels in my area, FOX, CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS broadcast their major programs in High Definition....and what isnt' in HD is still better than anything else you can get with a digital image....that's jsut over the air broadcasts. On DitecTV i have the High Definition package which is only 10.00/month and has like6 or 7 HD channels..Discovery, ESPN-HD, HDNet, HDNet-Movies and then get HBO-HD as well.

While I like to buy new technology as an early adopter, right now there is more than enough HD out there to justify buying a new TV. For you cheapos, you can buy a set top converter for digital signals and watch it on your crappy TVs till you die.

Games look great as well on HDTVs. PS2 and X-Box both have component cable options for very clear pictures.

As always, the best place to research HDTV or any home theater information is the AVS Forums:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/index.ph ... d10a90487a

check out the HDTV forums.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 31, 2003, 2:13 pm

Nice post Winnow! edit: double post

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » October 31, 2003, 3:24 pm

$900 for a TV isn't expensive?

Akanae · Post by **Akanae** » October 31, 2003, 3:54 pm

$900 for a 47" HDTV seems pretty cheap to me... We paid close to $2,000 for our 36" Sony Vega HDTV a little over 2 years ago.

edit: GambeCube has component cables too!

Dalmoth · Post by **Dalmoth** » October 31, 2003, 4:24 pm

One of the other reasons for it iirc is that it frees up frequencies in the lower bands that are currently used by the TV stations for radio stations to consume.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 31, 2003, 5:24 pm

I have no problem with the technology and with better TV displays. My objection is in the government mandating the inclusion of a particular bit of technology. If the tuners are really a desired option for TVs to have, then people will be willing to pay for them and companies will either provide them or lose out on potential business (something businesses are typically adverse to). So if they are desired by consumers, there is no reason for the government to mandate them. If they aren't, then government is forcing people to pay an unwanted cost by mandating their inclusion.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 31, 2003, 5:57 pm

the government controls and regulates how the tv signals are dispersed to everyone's homes. they want to stop broadcasting in analogue but can't do it until almost every working tv can receive digital signals. is this really so fucking difficult to grasp?

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 31, 2003, 6:21 pm

kyoukan wrote:the government controls and regulates how the tv signals are dispersed to everyone's homes. they want to stop broadcasting in analogue but can't do it until almost every working tv can receive digital signals. is this really so fucking difficult to grasp?

Is it that difficult to grasp that a not inconsiderable portion of the populace do not buy television sets to receive broadcast signals? (Along with all the other previously stated arguments).

Also its the National Association of Broadcaster's that want to make the switch to broadcasting digital. They are just relying on the government to be the heavy rather than actually have to deal with the open market.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » October 31, 2003, 6:23 pm

good thing i am already in the market for a hdtv!

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 31, 2003, 6:55 pm

what the fuck do they buy tvs for then? to put plants on?

jesus christ you are fucking dumb.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 31, 2003, 7:05 pm

Mine has been receiving a digital signal from the satellite dish since the early or mid 90s I believe (can't remember exactly when I got it, its been a while though). Before that it was hooked up to the cable company. This is of course when it isn't getting its signal from the dvd or vhs player. I can't remember the last time I actually tried to pick up a broadcast signal.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » October 31, 2003, 7:25 pm

so you think that because you aren't getting your tv via antenna that you are getting a digital broadcast signal?

yeah ok.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » October 31, 2003, 9:10 pm

No, I don't think I am getting a broadcast signal at all (by broadcasting referring to the common usage of broadcast television, technically a satellite broadcasts as well). DirecTV, my satellite provider, provides a digital signal. It gets decoded by the receiver I bought from them when I got the system. The cable I used to have was analog (although many cable companies now offer digital cable).

Ennia · Post by **Ennia** » November 1, 2003, 2:01 am

Chmee is just anti-goverment

Hammerstalker PE · Post by **Hammerstalker PE** » November 1, 2003, 6:47 am

No Chmee is right and my hat is off to you bro for not sinking to Kyoukan's level. Now here cmoe some more expletives from the soapy mouthed Kyoukan.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » November 5, 2003, 9:55 am

As I thought, bet it gets shot down...

"Today, the FCC adopted the MPAA's "broadcast flag" scheme, requiring that digital broadcast receivers and anything that connects to them is now required to check for the presence of the flag and apply DRM restrictions to its outputs. Currently, no such restrictions are required by law. EFF Staff Technologist Seth Schoen comments: 'The FCC has decided that the way to get Americans to adopt digital TV is to make it cost more and do less.' The unusual aspect of the FCC's ruling is that the restrictions are applied even though the input signals are completely unencrypted. Thus, this technology regulation goes beyond even the scope of the DMCA. "Instead of a scheme that actually protects content, the Flag forces manufacturers to go back to the drawing board and make all their devices monitor for Flagged content,"

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » November 5, 2003, 10:48 am

Vetiria wrote:$900 for a TV isn't expensive?

Exactly what I was thinking.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » November 5, 2003, 11:01 am

kyoukan wrote:part of a government's obligation to society is to encourage and even enforce progress.

Social "progress" as determined by the populace yes. Progress in this area should be market driven.

This? It's a load of poo foisted on us just like the DCMA laws, bought and paid for my the MPAA, RIAA and advertising lobbies. I don't have any problem letting them protect their assets, every method they've chosen to use so far has been fundamentally flawed, and doomed to failure.

And yes, $900 is a lot for a TV. Mines usually on enough for the news, weather, simpsons, and a movie or two a month.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » November 5, 2003, 11:11 am

Nobody is forcing you to buy one. If you watch TV so little you'll hardly miss it when the analogue broadcast signals are discontinued and your TV won't decode digital.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » November 5, 2003, 12:49 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:Nobody is forcing you to buy one. If you watch TV so little you'll hardly miss it when the analogue broadcast signals are discontinued and your TV won't decode digital.

It is not saying that I have to buy a new TV, but it is saying that if I want to buy one I will have to buy one with this added. That in my opinion is an unwarranted intrusion into the market by the government (for all the reasons I have given already in this thread).

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » November 5, 2003, 1:30 pm

That in my opinion is an unwarranted intrusion into the market by the government

But if the market is your concern, what about the market for broadcast licences? That market will be expanded when digital TV signals consume less of the bandwidth.
The government seems to me to be ensuring that the TVs you buy will do what you want them to: receive TV signals. If using fossil fuels to power vehicles was supplanted by electric cars and the govt mandated electric motors in new vehicles would you see it the same way?

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » November 5, 2003, 1:53 pm

kill your television.

the only things worth watching are the history channels & the discovery channels anyway. Turn the TV off and pick up a book!

Post by **Sylvus** » November 5, 2003, 1:58 pm

Discovery channel is available in HD now, those animal shows are fucking sweet in high def!

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » November 5, 2003, 2:09 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:
That in my opinion is an unwarranted intrusion into the market by the government
But if the market is your concern, what about the market for broadcast licences? That market will be expanded when digital TV signals consume less of the bandwidth.
The government seems to me to be ensuring that the TVs you buy will do what you want them to: receive TV signals.

As I have pointed out before, one of the big problems here is some people may not buy TV's to receive broadcast signals (which is what the tuner addresses).

If using fossil fuels to power vehicles was supplanted by electric cars and the govt mandated electric motors in new vehicles would you see it the same way?

Absolutely.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » November 5, 2003, 2:10 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:That market will be expanded when digital TV signals consume less of the bandwidth.

That's not what's going to happen, that's what could happen if they weren't a pack of idiots. What they are trying to mandate is the same sloppy spectrum usage we have now, but with an (ineffective) DRM "feature" added in.

This primary intent of this legislation is to prevent the use of TiVO and other recording devices that can\could block out commercials and such. Potantially giving advertisers bargaining room for lower rates. It has nothing to do with providing a better or more efficient service becasue it does neither.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » November 5, 2003, 2:11 pm

Skogen wrote:kill your television.

the only things worth watching are the history channels & the discovery channels anyway. Turn the TV off and pick up a book!

and home improvement channels, food channels, comedy channels, and SPORTS!

Fuck reading, I've used enough imagination already

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » November 5, 2003, 3:32 pm

Sylvus wrote:Discovery channel is available in HD now, those animal shows are fucking sweet in high def!

The sheep special the other night was soooo life-like...I wanted to jump right through the screen and...

-------------------

I don't see why people are bitching about this change to a better signal transmission system. You DO NOT have to change. You can hold out till the bitter end and when the analog signals start to phase out, you just won't have TV. Who cares? You can also listen to 8-Tracks. and listen to records...I'm sure there will be some rogue tansmitter for the free people that broadcasts in analog till the year 2035. Go for it!

Just get it through your heads that your old TV will work until the tube blows out. You only need a converter box....you can watch the excellent digital or high def digital signals on your 10 line TV till your eyes bleed.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » November 5, 2003, 3:57 pm

I am not complaining about the broadcasters switching to a new transmission system. Personally, if I was going to buy a TV and there was one with the new tuner and one without, I might go ahead and get the one with the tuner if it wasn't too big of a difference in price (on the off chance that I might decide to actually tune in to a broadcast transmission at some point). But that is just me. My complaint comes in that the government is mandating the changes to manufacturers. The manufacturers should be free to decide to include the additional hardware or not, and consumers will decide how wise their choice was when they decide whether or not to buy their products.